[ad_1]
According to Blu Radio, after the Government and the airline company presented the corresponding replenishment resources in defense of the credit for 370 million dollars, andThe high court decided that it would not lift the measure imposed, firstly, because the resources came from the Emergency Mitigation Fund (Fome).
“After reviewing the appeals for reconsideration filed by Avianca and the Government in defense of said financing, the Court decided not to lift the precautionary measure, a decision against which Avianca has already filed an appeal,” said the airline in a communication cited by the middle.
The situation occurs, according to Portafolio, less than a week after Avianca’s appearance before a bankruptcy court in the United States, in which it will appear as Debtor in Possession (DIP), in order to get out of the economic crisis that it has faced for quite some time, and that worsened due to the tail of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Avianca no longer needs the entire government loan
The company announced several days ago that, thanks to the fact that it found investors (including Kingsland and United Airlines), the amount of the loan requested rose to 240 million dollars, 130 million dollars less than what it had initially requested. Besides this, He stressed that money can also be obtained not only from one, but from several governments.
While requesting all this money from the Government of Colombia and in the midst of the economic crisis it faces, it was also known that the airline was disbursing its senior executives more than 7 million dollars in bonds (26,000 million pesos, approximately); in fact, only Anko van der Werff, its president and CEO, received 13,000 million pesos (3.7 million dollars).
Avianca also lost the bid against the pilots union
The Supreme Court of Justice ordered Avianca to disburse 500 million dollars, as reparation, to the Colombian Association of Civil Aviators (Acdac), this taking into account that the action of the company in the middle of the demonstration of the pilots caused the massive withdrawal of many of them causing “certain damages”.
The high court made the determination after its Labor Chamber reviewed a cassation appeal filed by the union, in which it highlighted that the airline engaged in “anti-unionist behavior”, in addition to seeking to diminish the power of the union organization by offering better economic guarantees To their workers.
[ad_2]
